Climate debate: 97pc of scientists agree on nothing
IAN PLIMER
12:00AM JANUARY 17, 2019
It is often claimed that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic.
In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about humaninduced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of humaninduced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly.
If 97 per cent of scientists agree that there is human-induced climate change, you’d think they would be busting a gut to vanquish climate sceptics in public debates. Instead, many scientists and activists are expressing confected outrage at the possibility of public debates because the science is settled. After all, 97 per cent of scientists agree that human emissions drive global warming and there is no need for further discussion.
In my 50-year scientific career, I have never seen a hypothesis where 97 per cent of scientists agree. At any scientific conference there are collections of argumentative sods who don’t agree about anything, argue about data, how data was collected and the conclusions derived from data. Scepticism underpins all science, science is underpinned by repeatable validated evidence and scientific conclusions are not based on a show of hands, consensus, politics or feelings. Scientists, just like lawyers, bankers, unionists, politicians and those in all other fields, can make no claim to being honest or honourable, and various warring cliques of scientists have their leaders, followers, outsiders and enemies. Scientists differ from many in the community because they are allegedly trained to be independent. Unless, of course, whacking big research grants for climate “science” are waved in front of them.
The 97 per cent figure derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people with a self-interest in human-induced global warming who published “science” supported by taxpayer-funded research grants. Replies from 3146 respondents were whittled down to 77 selfappointed climate “scientists” of whom 75 were judged to agree that human-induced warming was taking place. The 97 per cent figure derives from a tribe with only 75 members. What were the criteria for rejecting 3069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3146 is 2.38 per cent. We did not hear that 2.38 per cent of climate scientists with a self-interest agreed that humans have played a significant role in changing climate and that they are recipients of some of the billions spent annually on climate research.
Another recent paper on the scientific consensus of human-induced climate change was a howler. Such papers can be published only in the sociology or environmental literature.
The paper claimed that published scientific papers showed there was a 97.1 per cent consensus that man had caused at least half of the 0.7C global warming since 1950.
How was this 97.1 per cent figure determined? By “inspection” of 11,944 published papers. Inspection is not rigorous scholarship. There was no critical reading and understanding derived from reading 11,944 papers. This was not possible as the study started in March 2012 and was published in mid-2013, hence only a cursory inspection was possible. What was inspected? By whom?
The methodology section of the publication gives the game away. “This letter was conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website (www.skepticalscience.com). In March 2012, we searched the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science for papers published from 1991-2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’.”
This translates as: This study was a biased compilation of opinions from non-scientific, politically motivated volunteer activists who used a search engine for key words in 11,944 scientific papers, were unable to understand the scientific context of the use of “global warming” and “global climate change”, who rebadged themselves as “citizen scientists” to hide their activism and ignorance, who did not read the complete papers and were unable to evaluate critically the diversity of science published therein.
The conclusions were predictable because the methodology was not dispassionate and involved decisions by those who were not independent.
As part of a scathing critical analysis of this paper by real scientists, the original 11,944 papers were read and the readers came to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Of the 11,944 papers, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950 (0.3 per cent). Of the 11,944 climate “science” papers, 99.7 per cent did not say that carbon dioxide caused most of the global warming since 1950. It was less than 1 per cent and not one paper endorsed a man-made global warming catastrophe.
Political policy and environmental activism rely on this fraudulent 97 per cent consensus paid for by the taxpayer to rob the taxpayer further with subsidies for birdand-bat-chomping wind turbines, polluting solar panels and handouts to those with sticky fingers in the international climate industry. It’s this alleged 97 per cent consensus that has changed our electricity from cheap and reliable to expensive and unreliable.
Activists with no skin in the game are setting the scene for economic suicide.
Time for yellow shirts to shirt-front politicians about their uncritical acceptance of a fraud that has already cost the community hundreds of billions of dollars.
Emeritus professor Ian Plimer’s latest book, The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff, is published by Connor Court.

Layback40, I love and greatly appreciate the huge effort you make in posting these thousands of jokes; they are my favourite read here, and there is so much I enjoy reading on the forum.

However, and with respect, if the quote from Ian Plimer is not intended as a joke then I will only say that there is much Plimer says here, and previously, that is contentious and, in parts, wrong. I don't want to hijack the joke thread, so I will leave it there. It would take another lengthy piece to challenge/rebut each of the points needing a response.

Of course, it could be read as a joke, although I don't think Plimer intended that. ; )

If you don't laugh at this ........ seek help
A large woman, wearing a sleeveless sundress, walked into a bar in Dublin, Ireland. She raised her right arm, revealing a huge, hairy armpit as she pointed to all the people sitting at the bar and asked, "What man here will buy a woman a drink?" The bar went silent as the patrons tried to ignore her.
But down at the end of the bar, an owl-eyed drunk slammed his hand down on the counter and bellowed, "Give the ballerina a drink!"
The bartender poured the drink, and the woman chugged it down. She turned to the patrons and again pointed around at
all of them, revealing the same hairy armpit, and asked, "What man here will buy a lady another drink?"
Once again, the same little drunk slapped his money down on the bar and said, "Give the ballerina another drink!"
The bartender approached the little drunk and said, "Tell me, Paddy, it's your business if you want to buy the lady a drink, but why do you keep calling her the ballerina?"
The drunk replied, "Any woman who can lift her leg that high has got to be a ballerina!"

AJOR does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness
or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any
message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily
the views of AJOR or any entity associated with AJOR, nor should any advice
be substituted as technical advice replacing that of a mechanic. You agree,
through your use of this service, that you will not use AJOR to post any material
which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful,
harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's
privacy, religious, political or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted
material unless the copyright is owned by you or by AJOR. The owner, administrators
and moderators of AJOR reserve the right to delete any message or members for
any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of
your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless AJOR, the administrators,
moderators, and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission
of your message(s). The use of profile signatures to intentionally mislead or misdirect any member on this forum is not acceptable and may result in your account being suspended. Any trip that is organised through the AJOR forum is participated
at your own risk. If you or your vehicle is damaged it is your responsibility,
not that of the person that posted the thread, message or topic initiating the
trip, nor the organisers of AJOR or moderators of any specific forum. This forum
and associated website is the property of AJOR.